[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Prolacertiformes and Protorosauria
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 06:05:47 -0700
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Prolacertiformes and Protorosauria
> Yes, there is some intuition that goes into judging results.
> ie. placing mesosaurs with pareiasaurs = bad.
> More importantly, there is some experience at work here too. Yes, I've done
> the larger, more inclusive study, that indicates the breaks are real and
> taxon exclusion is the culprit.
go on, please.
> As for your 'by definition' comment, yes. True. Even so, 'by default' is also
> at work here. The authors were working from too large a gamut and too small
> of an inclusion group to make sense. There are better sister taxa out there.
> The larger study would have revealed this.
if you could, when you've reached a good stopping point with these taxa to
take a break, could you take a look at the Desmostylia?
Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends.